[InTime]

Scoring: IMP

Teams

---

The questions are:

1. Do you as Opener open on this hand or pass planning to come in later?

2. Do you blame South if he does not open?

I would also appreciate if you will comment why you would have taken a certain action.

[helene_t]

This is a rule-of-twenty hand even discounting ♣Q.

Should we open 1♥ or 1♠? I have a slight preference for 1♠. (Some play jump reverses showing a minimum opener with 5-6, for those players it is an easyer 1♥).

[P_Marlowe]

pass, ask me tommorow.

If I open, I open 1S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gnasher]

I'd open 1♥, though there's something to be said for 4♥. I dislike 1♠ slightly more than I dislike pass.

[marcD]

I'd open 1♥; minimum hand for 3♠ rebid over 1NT or 2m in my methods (showing a weak 6-5). Passing could work well (if opponents bid minors or NT) but all pass is a possibility and I will not always get a chance to describe my hand

[Hanoi5]

1♥, we'll see where this takes us...

[jdonn]

I'd pass. I think it's a heck of a lot easier to find our best fit after passing than after opening. We also have less than no defense. If partner doubles anything after I open, especially if I haven't gotten to bid my spades, then I might as well pull down my pants and bend over.

[han]

I would pass I think but I don't have a problem with 1H. 1S is terrible imo.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Nov 6 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

I'd pass. I think it's a heck of a lot easier to find our best fit after passing than after opening. We also have less than no defense. If partner doubles anything after I open, especially if I haven't gotten to bid my spades, then I might as well pull down my pants and bend over.

Exactly.

[fred]

jdonn, on Nov 6 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

I'd pass. I think it's a heck of a lot easier to find our best fit after passing than after opening. We also have less than no defense. If partner doubles anything after I open, especially if I haven't gotten to bid my spades, then I might as well pull down my pants and bend over.

Agree.

Also agree with Han that 1H is tolerable, but 1S is horrible.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

fred, on Nov 6 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

Agree.

Also agree with Han that 1H is tolerable, but 1S is horrible.

Not that I disagree. I'm just more curious what you think about this quote from Bridge World Standard:

Quote

With a minimum-range five-six hand, open in the higher and shorter suit only when the long suits are adjacent.

Which of the following options do you think with regards to the above quote? (by the way, although I quoted Fred, this isn't just directed at him)

1. BWS is just plain wrong on this view and that you should always open your longer suit.

2. BWS should add an amendment to this rule with an exception when holding both majors.

3. BWS is not wrong on this issue, however the agreement is really more suited towards BILs and expert partnerships should find other ways to bid these hands.

4. Something else that you will explain.

[MickyB]

Yup pass > 1H >> 1S

Pass first then you can bid like crazy later, it's the only way you'll ever come close to describing your hand. Opening 1S will just land us in the wrong strain a significant proportion of the time - way more often than 1H will miss a better spade fit, most of the time if pard doesn't have four spades then we'll be happy to play in hearts.

[han]

All of 1, 2 and 4, the B/I forum has nothing to do with it. I try to open my longest suit whenever possible but with 5-6 in the red suits I can make an exception.

When I have the majors and the suit quality of my 6-card heart suit is better than the quality of my 5-card spade suit then I would never ever open 1S.

[ArtK78]

Echognome, on Nov 6 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

fred, on Nov 6 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

Agree.

Also agree with Han that 1H is tolerable, but 1S is horrible.

Not that I disagree. I'm just more curious what you think about this quote from Bridge World Standard:

Quote

With a minimum-range five-six hand, open in the higher and shorter suit only when the long suits are adjacent.

Which of the following options do you think with regards to the above quote? (by the way, although I quoted Fred, this isn't just directed at him)

1. BWS is just plain wrong on this view and that you should always open your longer suit.

2. BWS should add an amendment to this rule with an exception when holding both majors.

3. BWS is not wrong on this issue, however the agreement is really more suited towards BILs and expert partnerships should find other ways to bid these hands.

4. Something else that you will explain.

Option 4.

The hearts are so much better than the spades that it would be better to treat this hand as 6-4 rather than 6-5, at least for purposes of opening the bidding.

Of course, many of us avoid the problem entirely (at least for the first round of bidding) by passing. This is a sub-minimum opening bid (with virtually no defense), not a minimum opening bid. And it will be far easier to describe the hand by passing and bidding later than by opening the bidding.

[Echognome]

By the way, for my own view, I think the "right" opening bid should obviously depend upon system. BWS says it is right in their system and who am I to argue that. However, using judgement is certainly something that should be considered.

I would say, e.g. that when playing gnome club that the only "right" opening bid is 1♠ as you can later relay out your 5=6=1=1 shape and the light opening is expected (as is the possible canape on 5-6 hands).

In Tarzan club, the "right" opening bid is 1♥, but it would also be right to open 1♥ with 6-5 or 6-4 in the majors.

Obviously I understand that the debate is centered around what is the "right" opening call playing a natural based system (maybe specifically 2/1 or SAYC).

[fred]

Echognome, on Nov 6 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

fred, on Nov 6 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

Agree.

Also agree with Han that 1H is tolerable, but 1S is horrible.

Not that I disagree. I'm just more curious what you think about this quote from Bridge World Standard:

Quote

With a minimum-range five-six hand, open in the higher and shorter suit only when the long suits are adjacent.

Which of the following options do you think with regards to the above quote? (by the way, although I quoted Fred, this isn't just directed at him)

1. BWS is just plain wrong on this view and that you should always open your longer suit.

2. BWS should add an amendment to this rule with an exception when holding both majors.

3. BWS is not wrong on this issue, however the agreement is really more suited towards BILs and expert partnerships should find other ways to bid these hands.

4. Something else that you will explain.

I don't think it is necessarily a question of right versus wrong, but I do think the BWS rule is overly simplisitic to qualify as a sound principle.

For example, I could understand opening 1S with:

AKQJx
Jxxxxx
x
x

But I could not understand opening 1S with:

Jxxxx
AKQJxx
x
x

And I would prefer to open 1H and reverse with a hand like:

AQxxx
AKxxxx
x
x

rather than open 1S despite this being a "minimum range opening" (at least in terms of high cards).

Also, the "adjacent" part of the rule seems questionable to me at least in the case where you have 5 hearts and a 6-card minor. Hearts and diamonds are adjacent while hearts and clubs are not, but I don't think it really matters that much as far as which suit to open in concerned (especially if you play Walsh).

Partnership style comes into play at least as much as right versus wrong IMO. In my regular partnerships we almost always open our longest suits when we have distributional hands. I can't claim that this is "right" or anything (or that BWS is "wrong"), but it is the style I am most comfortable with.

Many strong players prefer a different style (opening 1D with 4-5 in the minors or following the BWS 5-6 principle more often than I would).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[han]

Fred, I vaguely remember you once posted that you like to use a 3NT opening for hands like this, is that correct?

[fred]

han, on Nov 6 2008, 09:20 PM, said:

Fred, I vaguely remember you once posted that you like to use a 3NT opening for hands like this, is that correct?

You have a good memory!

In my partnership with Brad Moss we use a 3NT opening to describe a hand with at least 6-5 in the majors and less than a solid opening bid.

I can't really say if I like it or not, because it hardly ever comes up (and I have to admit that I have forgotten to open 3NT on at least a couple of hands that would have been appropriate for this convention).

I do like the basic concept of opening 3NT with hands that are most unlikely to belong in 3NT. Opening 3NT with hands that are very likely to belong in 3NT is another reasonable strategy, but I am not sure such hands really exist. I don't like "Gambling 3NT" because it fails both of these tests.

I would consider it somewhat aggressive, though certainly not crazy, to open 3NT with this particular hand when vulnerable. It would be a normal 3NT opening when not vulnerable.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Codo]

In anstandard system I would normaly pass.

However, playing the quite popular treatment, that 2 ♥ (or 2♦) shows both majors weak, I cannot pass this because I cannot show this hand later.
So I have to open 1 ♥.

[InTime]

Scoring: IMP

Teams
East/West playing strong NT, 5-card majors

---

Thanks for all the comments on this one. It was really appreciated.
For interest sake the bidding went as follows:

At Table 1:
West...North...East...South
Pass....1NT.....Pass...2♦*
3♥**....Pass....Pass...Pass

* Weak

** I think the problem started here with the 3♥ bid. It took East out of the bidding. West should have Dble here, East would probably bid 2 or 3♠ whereby East/West can reach 4♠.
The contract went down in 3♥ when North leads ♠A and then a spade ruff.

At Table 2:
Also a Pass, North/South plays Precision and East/West reached 4♠. Unfortunately I could not obtain the bidding sequence because I was not involved in the competition.

It would have been interested if West opened 1♥ and North bids 1NT.
East would probably Pass and South also if he cannot sign off in 2♦.
The question now is - will West now bid 2♠ Vulnerable?. This is now a Sherlock Holmes case - for those supporting opening 1♥.

Regards